imo, i would pick up this one as if i do not have 24-105mm. why? because of its macro at the end of tele (might save me a lens swap - yes i am just lazy in changing lens - and couple hundred dollars from buying 100mm macro)... i think that it might sharper than 24-70mm 2.8 even version II since it comes with is and macro capability but not i am not pretty sure... let see

I am buying the 24-105mm f4L IS for reach. I will buy the 24-70mm f2.8L IS whenever it finally comes out. The 24-70mm f4L IS is just completely redundant. However, I do like that it has a 77mm filter thread.

Personally, if I were to buy a standard zoom for a FF, I would go f/2.8. An f/4 will only give me the same DoF at equivalent lengths as an APS-C f/2.8, so what is the benefit of going FF if I lose a unique advantage?Of course, this is totally subjective.

imo, i would pick up this one as if i do not have 24-105mm. why? because of its macro at the end of tele (might save me a lens swap - yes i am just lazy in changing lens - and couple hundred dollars from buying 100mm macro)... i think that it might sharper than 24-70mm 2.8 even version II since it comes with is and macro capability but not i am not pretty sure... let see

Skippermark

I am buying the 24-105mm f4L IS for reach. I will buy the 24-70mm f2.8L IS whenever it finally comes out. The 24-70mm f4L IS is just completely redundant. However, I do like that it has a 77mm filter thread.

I agree. The 24-105 is a perfect walk around lens when you want to go light without a lot of gear.